department are effective and are taking hold. the policy in our haste in office has developed a new policy designed to protect victims of domestic violence and other crimes and has ensured that they are reported. a conservative created idea of which i support has been very affective, and young people brought to this country through no fault of their own, and this

is popularly expected from our citizenry, are given if they go into service and graduate and do a few other things that indicate they want to be good americans us are given abbaof special gain to realize that. thank you for coming back again, and i will put the rest of my statement on the record, and thank the chairman. good >> thank you. our witness is janet napolitano, secretary to the united states department of homeland security. mrs. napolitano is the third secretary of the dhs. prior to becoming secretary, she was in her second term as governor of arizona prior to

becoming governor, she served as u.s. attorney and the district of arizona. she is a graduate of santa clara university, where she won the truman scholarship. before entering public office, she served as clerk of the u.s. court of appeals in the ninth circuit and practiced law in phoenix arizona. >> thank you, members of the committee. i am pleased to join you to address the issues the fall within the committee's jurisdiction. this is my 40th time testifying before the senate or the house. today nearly 11 years after the

9-11 attacks, america is stronger and more secure thanks to dhs and our territorial partners across homeland security enterprise. every day more than 230,000 dhs employees ensure the safety and security of the american people in jobs that ranged from law enforcement officers and agents, from those who make sure our waterways stay open to those who make sure our skies remained safe. the men and women are dedicated to their mission, and i thank them for their service. of homeland security begins with hometown security. part of our commitment, we have work to get tools and resources into the hands of

officials and first responders, and this has led to significant advantage. we have made great progress against terrorist attacks. good we have increased our ability to analyze and distribute threat information at all levels. we have invested in training for local law enforcement and first responders of all types in order to increase our expertise and capacity at a local level, and we have supported preparedness and response capabilities across the country through more than $36 billion in homeland security grounds since 2002. as the committee knows, we have made substantial advances in securing our nation's borders and enforcing immigration laws, and up the same time we have worked to streamline homeland

security. good why would like to talk about this important issue for our country. is ranking member noted, this administration has deployed an unprecedented levels of person now, technology common and and resources to protect our nation's borders. these efforts have achieved significant results, and illegal immigration attempts are at the lowest level since 1971. this decrease in apprehensions of those seeking to enter the country illegally is combined with increased seizures in drugs, weapons, cash, and contraband. we have continued to deploy our unprecedented amount of manpower, resources, and technology, while expanding our partnerships with federal,

state, tribal, and local partners as well as with the government of mexico. the obama administration has taken sustained action to secure our border. this includes increasing from approximately 10,000 to more than 21,000 with nearly 18,500 booths underground -- boots on the ground. we have also worked to standardize our laws that maximizes the resources congress has given us to do this important job our priorities are to enhance public safety, national security, border security, and the integrity of

the integration system while respecting the rule of law and staying true to our nation's history. we carry out this by focusing on the identification and removal of criminal aliens, repeat violators, and those who otherwise pose a threat to public safety or national security. we have expanded the use and frequency of programs that track down criminals and other public safety and security threats. these efforts have achieved historical results, including the removal of 216,000 criminals in 2011. this year we will remove the highest number of felons ever. my june 15 announcement

regards the availability of deferred action for who came over as children. this ensures we do not averse -- divert resources for those who arrived as children and have called and no other country home. implementation is under way, and we will be ready to go except applications on august 15. we have made numerous improvements to our benefits and services, continuing our tradition of welcoming nation to new immigrants, students, and those seeking asylum. this department has come a long way, and in the nearly 11 years since 9-11 to enhance the protection of the united states and engage our full range of

partners in a shared responsibility. we have made significant progress to strengthen our borders and enforce immigration laws and streamline our immigration policies and systems. we are aware of challenges of remain. threats against our nation continue to exist and of golf, and dhs must continue to evolve as well. we continue to be vigilant to protect against threats to our nation while promoting movement of goods and people and protecting our central rights and liberties. i thank the committee for your attention as we work together to keep the country safe, and i am looking forward to your questions. thank you. >> i will recognize myself for questions, and let me start with my opening statement and the topic of the leaks, which i feel has endanger national

security and put american lives at risk. there is bipartisan concern. you have the chairs of the committee's vote saying the extent is wider than any we have seen in recent years. have you had the opportunity to talk to the president or his incisors about these leaks and how to prevent them in the future? >> i have spoken with the head of the and i about beliefs-- the leaks, but i take this seriously. >> according to the reports, it was high-level officials said were the source of these leaks. have you taken any action to find out more about why they

occur and why high-level officials were involved? >> i have not, but others are looking into the source of the leaks. >> the you favor the appointment of a special counsel to investigate these lease them on -- these leaks? the president was willing to appoint an onside council. would you support such an outside counsel be appointed because of recent leaks democrat there are a number of individuals looking into the recent leaks. i do not know if another one would add value. >> what the administration has done is to appoint investigators for themselves.

the and ministration was investigating itself, then it would be more credible to appoint a special counsel, an outside party to get to the bottom of the leak, so i'm disappointed the administration is not willing to do that. let me go to the subject of the administration trying to implement provisions without the art of congress but in the way that is being implemented. will individuals be eligible for advance parole? it is my understanding they would be eligible to you have any reason to think otherwise? >> this is deferred action.

>> would individuals be eligible to receive the status? >> there may be particular individuals, but the program is designed to be a case by case analysis there are so many individual factors such i do not want to make a categorical answer. >> if you said some individuals might be, that is of some concern to me, because if they get that status, that is going to allow them lawful permanent status. if you go down that road, i think we need to be aware of the consequences of those actions. >> the factors that go into this are laid out in my memorandum to our department heads on june 15.

this is clearly a case by case analysis. there may be factors independent from and separate from. >> i know it is a case by case. the next question, are the parents of individuals, those who received three mike amnesty, would they be eligible for possible discretion? >> they would not be eligible for deferment. they may be independently subject to prosecutorial discretion. >> dhs does not currently plan to require applicants to provide a certified school transcript. it seems to me that is the only way to prove those individuals were in the country and were eligible under some of those

provisions. you plan to require applicants to provide that a transcript or not? >> we are still working through the details on some of that. our plan is to except different kinds of documents. >> how can you still bee looking through those individuals when several thousand have been granted status under those provisions. >> we are looking at one records they have to produce. i have already had several individuals who have looked at those. >> is it true 1000 individuals have already been approved? >> yes. >> we still do not know the details about whether transcripts will be required or not? >> anything to show residency, what have you, and we will of

valuate on a case by case basis. >> the school transcripts may or may not be required? >> i think that is fair to say. >> thank you, and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, secretary napolitano. i want to start off with these threats of a border crossing in detroit and windsor. is there any comment you can make about this at this point? about the bomb threats that shutdown the ambassador bridge in detroit and windsor for five hours and are of national concern in my locality? the you have any information you can share with us up as a client? >> -- you can share with us at

this point? >> the fbi has an open investigation. we are providing all assistance necessary, and we are also looking at how long the closures were to see if there are ways to clear a bridge or a tunnel for lawful commerce the needs to go back and forth. >> the chairman and not mentioned when amnesty twice -- the chairman mentioned amnesty twice. the dream act, can you help clear up this notion of deferred amnesty being involved are marked parks is not amnesty. -- this notion of deferred amnesty being involved?

>> it is not amnesty. the question is how do we clear up the backlog so we can focus on criminals, recent border crossers, repeat violators and this particular group has a strong equities. as we went through a case by case analysis, it became clear to me we needed to do something in addition to that, and that resulted in a conclusion to offer two-year deferred action, case by case analysis subject to renewal. lacks what about the recent arizona case -- >> what about the recent arizona case that gave some strong support for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion?

the you have any comments you can share with us about that matter? >> i think it validated the fact that the federal government ultimately has the discretion of enforcing immigration laws, and i think their language is very strong. if you go through president, you have reno vs. the anti-american discrimination league, and ultimately you have article 2, section 3 of the constitution and reaffirming the executive has discretion in terms of who to prosecute and who to prioritize resources for. in this case, criminals, recent border violators, and repeat violators. >> our subcommittee on crime

issued a subpoena for information related to individuals arrested identified by ice for removal of but never taken into custody, and i have been told you produced nearly 250,000 individuals satisfying the subpoena and that you continue to provide additional information. how is that coming along? we do not normally have subcommittees issuing subpoenas, but oh, well. >> we intend and have been trying to comply with the subpoena and to provide documents a lot of the requests are four documents in formats other than how we maintain

documents. they have received another request, i want to say mid july we intend to comply with that. >> i have other questions, but i will be submitting them to you, and we will put them in the record. >> the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> first, let me compliment you buy . i commend you for your good judgment. one of the biggest problems we have is visa overstays, and i have seen estimates of up to 40% sign entered the country illegally and did not leave before their fees so was expired. what kind of figures you have about overstays and what plans

you have to track down those who overstay their visa as well as some kind of exit check for people who leave the country? >> let me break that in two parts. we could have had as many as 1.2 6 million, so last year i had to direct that we identify and now visa overstays and identify them for our ace. we found half of them have left the country and we had just not match the record appropriately. a number of them were not overstays. they had changed their status. we have done a background checks on all of them against law enforcement and national security databases the reagan

with respect to an exit system, we have given the congress in may our plan to how we get to a biometric exit system for the country. we begin by using data we previously did not have in one place you could easily search, but we have given the plan, and our intent is to move forward. one of our new projects is with canada. did we are going to match their entry data for land entry, so if we do not have the ability for exit the data at the land border, we will take the entry data and put it in our system. >> that gets me to the story and that appeared yesterday that said of the tsa approved flight

training for 25 illegal immigrants out of place school but was owned by another illegal alien according to a study. the illegal alien flight school attendees included eight who had entered the country illegally and 17 who had overstayed their time in the united states according to an audit, and the story goes on to say there were over 25,000 foreign nationals that were not in the database and have not been vetted. this sounds like 9-11 déjà vu, and i am wondering what the department of homeland security is going to do to make sure everybody in a flight school is properly vented if they are

foreign nationals. >> i think that referred to a several year-old matter, which obviously is of concern, but we took steps to insure all foreign students in this country are vetted, and that has been in place, and we intend to confirm that. we have been doing it for years. they said you do not have a written thing. we are going to put it together. i think we want to make sure we are very tight for obvious reasons. >> the story also said they did not provide the full number of individuals who are not properly ventetted. the you have numbers on how many

were not properly vented? and that's all i can say -- >> all i can say is foreign students were not. the database is routinely pain against arent and national security databases. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> five years ago congress passed the 9-11 implementation bill, which mandated by this month all maritime cargo containers must be scanned before they were on loaded onto ships bound for the united states. we recognize 100% scanning would be difficult to achieve overnight, which is why we gave them five years to comply. of the assumed 100% scanning would be phased in and the the department would make a good-

faith effort to try to comply with the law. dhs recently granted an extension for all ports, citing obstacles the department never tried to overcome. your letter to congress repeats a lot of the same objections we heard five years ago. you have repeatedly said you prefer a layered approach. i do not think anyone would have a problem with that as long as the department's efforts to not stop with high risk cargo. checking just a cargo you think is high risk is in adequate. scanning 100% of cargo should be the goal. if we stand grandmothers and 4- year-old, why shouldn't the same principle holds true for maritime containers, which could easily contained nuclear weapons? that is the law, and that is

what you should work to achieve. i am concerned they have never agreed with the law and have never made efforts to resolve the potential challenges. they have cited technological barriers, yet there are court operators who want to work with the department on implementing a law and tell us the department will not talk to them. it assumes the government would pay to maintain the equipment, when there is nothing that says the cost would be borne by taxpayers. the cost per container has been estimated at $10 or $20 per container. my questions are why do they continue to racist complying

with the law, and will you continue to work with us in moving forward with the mandate? a >> representative, in my view, we have made a good-faith effort to comply with the law. we have met with foreign governments. there has been extensive research. we came to the conclusion of the goal is the right goal. >> congress decided a later

approach of inspecting only high risk cargo once it is here was not sufficient. but as a decision congress made. it is the law. it is not up to the department to change that view. >> we have an extensive program including container security and others. >> all of which congress decided was not sufficient, and congress decided and the president signed into law that said you must implement 100% standing as quickly as practical within five years, yet you have decided that is not practical, which is not your decision, and you have made no attempt to implement the law. >> you and i are going to have to disagree on that, but we continue to improve efforts to

inspect containers, to have trusted not shippers. >> isn't it true that 2% or 4% of int containers are inspected? >> it probably depends on support. >> but it is close to 4%? >> i cannot give you that number. your >> my understanding is that it is under 4%, and that leaves you 96% short. perhaps the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, and welcome. it is an important hearing and an issue i have been involved with for 25 years, and it never seems to get any easier. i would like to make a unanimous consent request that because of the amount of time i know we

have the opportunity to submit questions, my unanimous consent would be the questions i submit to the secretary be responded hopefully within 30 days and that i would have the opportunity to have a response to the questions that were ever responded back to us by the secretary pierre area rigid by the secretary. good >> i reserve the right to object. >> the gentleman from north carolina. >> i appreciate the opportunity to respond to my good friend from north carolina. i do not intend to ask any trick questions. you will find the questions will not be something that requires a great deal of research.

it is really more on policy for these issues, and sometimes we get responses that are not complete, and i would like to say that i accept or disagree on it, just for the record. >> i have serious reservations about what the gentleman is proposing. i assume he proposed a set of rules as it does not apply to others. his intention may be good, but i do not have the same level of confidence in all the other members having the same set of intentions. seems to me that each of us have the opportunity to outlaw and with members of the administration by calling them,

having a dialogue with them on their own, and it seems to me to set up this procedure which is inconsistent with committee rules is something that is unnecessary. i am happy to listen. i am trying to keep from objecting. >> i appreciate the gentleman is comments, and i certainly do not disagree with your statement about the committee as of old -- as a whole. i appreciate your kind remarks. the issue is i do not intend this to be a president. this is not a special thing. that is why we have unanimous consent policy on the floor or wherever. i have never asked for this before. we have a limited amount of

time. there is a tremendous amount on the agenda, and i would like to out some straightforward questions, and particularly having to do with criminal immigrants and have the opportunity to respond to it. it would be consistent with everything we are doing, only giving the secretary an opportunity to have time to put these things together, and that is the purpose of having this hearing. good >> we have had a good discussion on this subject. does the gentleman from north carolina subject -- object? >> let me be clear on why i am intending to object, because i think all of us are frustrated by the five-minute rule. we are all frustrated by the

short time the record is kept open for responses from the administration. be totter route would extend the time for us to have this kind of back-and-forth from the shorter time to a longer-term so people can go back and forth, but i am inclined to object. >> may i respond? i think everyone on this committee, particularly those like my good friend and others, over the 25 years we have served on this committee, as it relates to the amount of time members have taken respectfully, but a

portion i have taken in relation to my good friend and others is not even a tiny blip on the radar screen. >> for that reason i am having real trouble of objecting to the gentle man, because i know his intentions are good, but i really think we would be setting a bad precedent if we did this, and for that reason i must object. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> while i understand the objection, i am disappointed, but life will go on. my questions will be more complex. after the hearing i will submit questions. as the dhs plan for those under the executive order of june 15,

and how many illegal immigration as a result will receive work permits? >> there is no executive order per say. this is a memorandum to the setting out thea program. they will be able to comply with work authorization. perhaps we keep saying we do not want to talk about amnesty, but this is the facto amnesty in my interpretation. how many would be given work permits? >> there are going to have to be standards, but the linkage

between different action and then the worker program goes back to the 1980's. >> is it going to be two or three people or 300,000 people? we have 300 people out of work at the moment. >> this was an issue i thought about the plea before i wrote my memorandum -- i thought about before i wrote my memorandum. my conclusion was there were lots of ways to stimulate job creation. we should not balance the american economy on the backs of children >> because of the lack of time, i would like to have sustained answers.

how many people will be able to work in this country while we have 14 million american citizens that are out of work? you have an approximate number? >> i tried to keep my numbers to keep my answers succinct, and i can tell you there is no real estimates. we do not know. >> you answered my question. is it true that enforcement region we talk about borders, but we do not talk about the 22 million people here illegally already in the country. is it true that worksite enforcement is down 70% over the past three years? >> that answer is partially true. it is down to 1500, and we have

been able to remove 100,000 more felons from the country done before, and the number of the garments is up. >> if you have increased enforcement, i would assume the exponentially would be a better situation. >> even if we had not made any adjustments for our priorities, you are still talking about a maximum of 5000 cases in the past. it is better to go after the employers themselves and then go after criminals. perhaps i could not agree more about going after employers. is it true ice agents are instructed to not detain or remove illegals during an enforcement action, >> it does

not permit a yes or no answer. the answer is it depends. >> getting back to the questions having to do with these shows, we accept the fact of the large percentage of people that illegally come to this country never cross the southern border. the people that were the perpetrators of 9-11 were be so overstays. having said that, dhs has established the security locations with a presence in only 15 countries. ice has identified 50 high risk posed. why does the proposed budget reduce funding for the security program for fiscal year 2012? >> difficult choices had to be made given the constraints of the budget control act. we have other things we can do to make sure they are vetted against our criminal security

databases, so while it is nice to have visas security officers in different places, and it is not something that is essential to national security. >> i see my time has expired, and i still like you. perhaps the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> the gentleman from california has follow-up questions with your agencies. the you anticipate any difficulty you might have getting appropriate responses to those follow-up questions? >> we intend to respond in a timely manner. >> thank you. you talked about student visas. august 15, you indicated would be the application date.

when would they expect to get some kind of documentation, and what would that allow them to do? >> we anticipate we will have guidance by the first of august. what we anticipate is within a short time after they send in their own applications, they will receive acknowledgment that their application is complete and ready to be processed. they will get an number, and the number will enable them to track as it goes through the process. >> will they be able to get on an airplane? >> yes. good >> with that or subsequent documentation? >> they will be input into the system, and the ideal is the deportation or removal action would be stayed until we complete the process. good >> thank you.

can you give us the status of department implementation and whether or not your regulations will be the same as those in the department of justice? >> they will meet the standards. they will not be identical because our facilities are different, but we have issued standards for prison rape, and including zero tolerance policy. we are following it strongly on all allegations, and we are going to be issuing standards, but they will be different, because our facilities are different. >> for the comments about security, i understand there is technology were the container trucks can drive through a scanner and it stands -- get

scanned while the truck is going 15 or 20 miles per hour. it lacks the current truck scanners and we use -- >> the current truck scanners we use at the border, the trucks but go through, i think it is 3 miles per hour. >> is there any reason that cannot be universal, why you cannot do 100%? >> 100% of what? >> container trucks and weaving of port -- container trucks leaving port. parts that involves the longer answer. i will try to be succinct, but the fact is seaborne containers go through a different level of security that is different from land born and trucks. >> what portion of containers

are standing in foreign points before they leave coming to america? praxair depends on the port, but we use a risc targeting system to identify high-risk cargo, and let me discuss that for a moment because it means we have a process where we certified trusted shippers and others moving containers all the time to the united states and doing random checking their, and then we have those the do not meet those standards company and what we do to make sure they are safe before they enter a u.s. port. good >> the final question i have, can you talk about the department agencies use of the federal prison industry program? >> we use fpi under contract.

i believe we use them in d.c. >> what do you mean by use? >> i believe we have a contract. is there a particular issue? >> it is a program and we want to maximize the use of, because you have prisoners giving job training using the program, encouraging them to be more likely to get a john when they get out. -- to get a job when they get the program is not being fully utilized, and we want to make sure the department of homeland security is using the program so we get the best benefit. the numbers have been declining

over the last few years. good >> my understanding is we are, but i would be happy to verify that. >> madam secretary, you have made several references to responding to requests from this committee in a timely fashion. you asked to appear on october 26 of last year common and following the hearing, a number of questions were transmitted to you in a timely fashion, and the dancers rolled in at 11:26 p.m. last night. do you regard that nine months' time. -- that nine months' time as being timely? the price it was not -- >> it was not. >> 11:26 is supposed to help the

members? >> we have responded, and committee members do not get their response, and as they prepare for hearings, the staff ask for new copies. i would need to look into that. i would like to remind the committee we have well over 100 committees and subcommittees met our submitting questions triggered strikes your statement today that you answer in a timely fashion is not a robot id by your failure to answer the question until nine months after an just a few hours before this hearing? >> you made a statement. >> we have answered that question. by samantha get an opportunity -- >> may i get an opportunity to answer a question. five can we get regular order? >> i am definitely getting

regular order. if that is what you want to look at, i would be happy to look into it. >> we want you to answer the questions in a timely manner. you stated it begins with hometown security, and you have work to get resources into the hands of state, local, tribal officials. how has refusing to enter them in my state of virginia ainge homeland security? can you relate claim you are working -- can you claim you are working to help homeland security? >> the task force's you refer

to are unproductive and very expensive. of the agreements we have, they produced zero removals in two years. the only one that was doing anything was the department of public safety, and they already have a task force. it cost almost 10 times as much through secured communities or through the jail model. we are moving who the more efficient model. >> i would like to know why you would not use law enforcement agencies and promptly remove them from this country. that is not what is happening in virginia. >> if i might, one of the things we have done to replace those

ineffective task forces is a great expansion of secure communities in the jails themselves, the program where we entered the database, and you will see our ability to remove criminals has gone up dramatically because of that. >> does this mean you will remove from the website the section that refers to the success stories? >> there may be some success stories. >> why are you counting down -- touting them? >> i would say to take it down. >> over time they have found that department of homeland

security employees are less satisfied with their jobs. i sprang to hundred 22. in the category related all other components ready to hundred 34. what is the cause of his morale problem? are there any problems due to the policies implemented by this administration, and what are you doing to address serious morale problems? >> that is an issue we are concerned about. we want them to be effective and well trained. we determined one of the real

sources of was that our first line or middle of world -- middle level supervisors were being promoted without training. that's because this content. there are others as well. i meet regularly with our component hence who have directed them to take all action necessary to do what we must to try to bring about morale up. we have looked at other departments that were able to go from low to high, and we intend to deploy those as well. >> my time has expired. i have additional questions i will submit in writing, and i am sure he will submit them to use common and and i hope you will submit them in a timely fashion, not nine months after. >> what you consider to be

timely? 30 days, two weeks to? >> it depends on the question. some require multiple departments. some require things that have not been collected. i will commit we can aim for 60, and if we have to have more, we will tell you why. >> thank you. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. rex thank you common and i think this last exchange may illustrate the concerns i was requesting about unanimous consent request. i was feeling bad about this, and the responses made it clear the putting the administration or any of these departments in a straightjacket was unanimous

consent would have done is not viable, although i fully support the administration responded to our oversight and to legitimate questions that are raised. i also want to express my gratitude for your cutting back on the program. i think it was the least successful abomination of any program i have observed in our local communities to turn local law enforcement away from primary responsibilities into in many cases absolute which hans doing something that is the primary responsibility of the federal government, and insect

so biased me it is hard to say anything nice about them, and now i have to say something nice about him. >> can i run it down? >> the efforts you have made in intellectual property rihanna -- property area of dealing with counterfeit goods and things online, i think while there have been some problems, i think ice has done a commendable job, and to acknowledge the fire there can be successes of the same time i have already acknowledged some of the failures, and i would point out the success in

north carolina but led to charges of trafficking in counterfeit drugs, hill said were circulating that were counterfeit in north carolina, when the ice did an exceptionally good job. and without even asking a question, let me say that i also applaud the decision regarding they don't people -- regarding young people that are here under the dreamliner category. if anyone, regardless of what your policy is on immigration, if anyone deserves to be treated as if they were not criminals, but it is kids who were born here, and one month, but two

years, have no connection to the country in which they were born, have no responsibility for bringing themselves into this country. their parents, if you consider them irresponsible or renegades, we should certainly not passed along to their children. if anyone deserves compassion, it is these young people. i do not know how anyone can argue with that. i hope you get this program implemented and all the rules in place quickly so these incentives -- quickly so we can get these kids.

and then to send embarq to a country they have no -- send them to a country they have no connection will get around to set up an immigration policy in our country to get them out of this temporary status that you have been able to testify for them. with that, maybe i will submit some questions and give them 30 to 60 to 90 days to respond and i want you to respond to myself and -- as timely as you can para

>> the gentleman from ohio is recognized for his questions. >> i thank the chairman and i had a few questions, i am trying to see around his head here. i would like to ask about how our customs in border patrol is handling a counterfeit products coming into our country. the intellectual probing -- party is responsible for spurring the industry and developing useful technology and creating jobs and we're focused on how we can get more jobs in this country. many bad actors are replicating trademarked american goods and shipping them back into their united states for sale here. basic products have a negative impact on the economy and can be dangerous oftentimes to the health and safety of the american people. the customs and border patrol agents generally make the first

contact with the shipments are coming into the country and is critical that your officers are able to communicate valuable information with the rights holders, the company here that would be producing would direct products, not the fake products that are coming in. those are the best individuals who are suited to authenticate the products, to make sure that their real or fake. that is why congressman poe and i have introduced the counterfeit foreign protection act. i was wondering if you -- perhaps your staff may have brought that to your attention. if you are familiar with the legislation and whether we can count on your support for it. >> i am not too familiar but i am familiar with the issue which is one way find counter for products, there had been -- this

is what i have been told. a pre-existing legal opinion that we were barred from telling the actual holder of the trademark about the infringing product. mine understanding is that has been revised to unchanged. so that barrier in a logger exists. >> that seems like the very issue and it has been improved somewhat. there is still some problems with it. we would like to work with you on that. it is critical to creating jobs and protecting the rights of the people here. that are producing a legitimate products. i was encouraged to see that your agency issued an interim regulation in april to allow your officers to share adjuration about counterfeits to the trademark owner to help cvp determine if the product is counterfeit or not. i was concerned about the interim -- there is a seven-day

waiting period where importers are given the opportunity to demonstrate they are to that does not have a kotter red mark. the project will not be denied entry. while i understand your agency came up with this procedure as a way to protect the interests of grain market importers, i am concerned thus far your agency has unwittingly created a potentially a giant loophole for the most unscrupulous of counterfeiters. what makes you think that a person willing and able to curry, for example, a fake product that looks real will not use the seven-day period to produce phony documents and fake certificates to show the counterfeits are general -- are genuine? cvp mcnabb able to seek help

from one source. when those of the documents are real and that is the owner of the trademark. this new procedure whereby the difference is to the importer and not the trademark holder invites a think that kind of -- type of deception, creating a loophole as i indicated to assure counterfeits into the country. we certainly appreciate your looking into that. >> i think that is a very fair point and i will be happy to not only look at it a work with you on this problem. >> and finally, madam secretary, i would like to turn to another recent issue with counterfeits coming across the border. in the latest attempt to repeal of u.s. trademarks, certain foreign criminals have found a new approach, that of current coupons. last week there was a police raid in arizona where police confiscated $2 million of assets in a home-based business

which was responsible for producing and distributing the counterfeit coupon on websites, affecting more than 40 u.s. product manufacturers. including a company based in my district, that is procter gamble. the alleged leader of the operation is accused of bringing in these coupons from overseas in large quantities and selling them on her website for 50% of the face value. the scope of this investigation has an economic impact in the hundreds of millions of dollars and i would ask you to look into that matter and make sure your agency is doing everything possible to protect our businesses here so we can create jobs. >> i am happy to do so. >> i would ask that the printout we have here from the department does it website under the i.c.e.

section entitled to 87 -- 287 success stories. with regard to the program made part of the record. >> without objection. ms. asking any questions, i would like to ask unanimous consent to put some material in the record. some have questioned the secretary's legal authority to set immigration enforcement priorities and exercise prosecutorial discretion on a case by case basis. i would like to enter into the record the supreme court pose a recent decision that explains immigration officials have broad discretion, including whether it makes sense to pursue removal at

all. a memorandum by the congressional research service analyzing the memorandum in a may 28, 2012 letter. addressing the executive authority to grant an administrative relief. in november, 1999, a bipartisan letter stablishing prosecutorial discretion as well, established and well grounded in case law and a november 17, 2000 memorandum laying out how the authority for exercising prosecutorial discretion. >> without objection. >> i would also ask unanimous consent to put in the record statements from the faith community including the evangelical immigration table, the u.s. catholic conference of bishops, the evangelical lutheran church in america and the hebrew immigrant aid society's support of the present

dramatic announcement. >> without objection. >> as well as letters from labor leaders in support of the dream act announcement. >> without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i am mindful that we are joined today in this hearing by elia acosta. and others who were five and three, karen vallejos, who was just 5 when she was brought to the united states. these are wonderful young people who are -- have achieved great things in their education. i have -- a return ago to speak to a school, whether it is

people getting their ph.d., some kid will say i am a dream act kid. the people who deserve our consideration is these young people. i would like to thank you for the action you have taken to allow these young people i think of as defect americans. this is their country but the papers are not in order. for taking the step to allow them to live normal lives until we get our act together in the congress. >> i would like to note in the process of getting our act together, we did in fact but the papers are pass the dream act in december 2010. it got 55 yes votes in the senate but because of their crazy rules, which could not get 60 votes to pass it.

hopefully, we will have an opportunity once again to pass that dream act and also to reform the law top to bottom. it does need reform in so many different ways. i have a concern that i would like to raise about the implementation of the applications and it is not about your department. it is about people who would prey on young people. every time there is an announcement, there are unscrupulous people who will go and try and charge people, not a republican who will see a need to pass this are that. i am hopeful that the department will take some steps, there is no reason why a defect american who is an 18-rolled on the honor roll needs to pay some feed to a lawyer or to a notary public or anybody else to get this application under way. have you thought about efforts

we might make to make sure that unscrupulous people did not take advantage in this situation? >> dess and the issue of fraud -- yes and the issue of fraud which has been a perennial problem, we're trying to address it in a couple of ways. outrage, working with different faith-based and advocacy groups and with student groups and others. the application itself is available on-line. it will be based on existing applications. there will be a fee associated with the application. we're going to do that and i'm going to reach out to the justice department themselves to see of the u.s. attorney's office can help us in this regard. >> i am glad to hear that. it is something that members themselves can help bonn in our

own communities. i wanted to talk a little bit about the history of the dream act. for many years, we worked together on this and i will never forget the late paul gilmore who was a very conservative man, there were many things we did not agree on what he called me and described a young man in his little town in ohio who was the valedictorian at the high school. he was the quarterback on the football team and he went to go get a document and it was only then he was told he was not born in the united states. he said i will straighten this out. i will go down to the government and straighten this out. he went down the day before christmas and put him in handcuffs and the little town was outraged. congressman gilmore understood, he did a private bill but he also understood this issue in a way that was his role and that

conservative republican put his name on the dream act as a co- sponsor. i am hopeful that as we move forward, we can get the kind of consensus that we once had on this issue and we're able to do the right thing. not only for these young people but for our country because they are part of a rich future for our country. >> thank you. i think we know if there is the two issues here. whether the substance of what is being done is appropriate and the second, at least up to a short time ago, many of us felt we were a nation of laws and the want to make sure we are in a legal matter. i want to come back to something the chairman said earlier. because this is what the president said. he said with respect to the

notion that i can suspend deportation through executive order, that is just not the case because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. there are enough laws on the books by congress that are clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system. there is an executive order to ignore those mandates would not conform with my role as president. he said that on march 28, 2011. my first question for you so that we can understand, to your knowledge, whether any laws that change between march 20, 2011 and today that would change with the president said? >> no. >> do you think the president was inaccurate at what he stated on march 28, 2011? >> i think come representative, it is important to understand what actually occurred here. >> no. i am asking what the president stated on march 28, 2011

regarding an executive order, was the correct in that statement? >> as a general matter, yes. >> no laws have changed. >> i notice you said the memorandum that you issued was not an executive order. i do not know. i am harking back to my old law school days and the bible we had was black's blog dictionary. an order issued by or on behalf of the president regarding a constitutional provision, law or treaty. was this memorandum that you issued issued on behalf of the president or under the authority of the president? >> it was under my authority as the secretary said a the priorities for the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws in an effort to deal not only with those compelling cases but the continued effort to clear the backlog to do with the more

-- >> is it your opinion, madam secretary, that the authority that you issued this under as your authority has greater authority than the president of the united states? >> i think as the representative has put in the long record, there is a lot of authority going far back about the ability of a prosecutor to set priorities. >> that is not my question and then appreciate prosecutorial discretion when prosecutors over do it on a case by case basis. do you think that you feel you have greater authority than then president of this matter? >> this is a case but his determination. this is a case by case determination design very carefully to be stated clearly within prosecutorial discretion presidents. >> to the president announced a this policy from the rose garden. i know that you are saying this was issued by you. it was the president and

announced the policy as president of the united states. the law dictionary says carefully an order issued by on behalf the president regarding a law or treaty. are you saying this was issued without -- not in conjunction with the president of the united states? >> this decision came from the department of romance security. the president approved of the decision which is what he denounced at the rose garden. it had already been announced the morning by myself. >> the president announced the policy. he is the one appointed you, is that not correct? what's that is true. >> you take your authority from the president. >> and the constitutional laws of the united states. >> and you hold a constitutionally directed office. can you tell me what part of article 2 is your authority? >> i would go to section 3, the

obligation to carry out the loss faithfully. to execute the laws. >> as i understand it, the president of the united states, you do not dispute the fact when he said he did not have authority to issue an order to do what you have now issued as secretary of common security. what you feel you have that authority and a capability to do? >> we are well seated in the law, that is correct. >> and again, you can see that the president did not have the authority to issue the order you wish? >> that is not what i said. i said in the executive order was not involved. >> but he did -- he could not have issued an executive order based on what he said. >> could he have waived a magic wand and say everybody is home free? know. can a prosecutor's office a on a case by case basis we will defer --

>> could he issue an executive order to save -- to do what you did? >> yes. >> thank you. >> the president's statement is being quoted but only partially because the rest of the statement is "now what we can do is prioritize enforcement since there are limited resources and say, we will not go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the dream act passed." the rest of the statement is important. >> thank you. reclining my time. i am pleased to have you here. i want to congratulate you. i do not care who did the action, whether you or the president, i am please the was done. it was the right thing to do. it was the fair thing to do.

i happily got on the telephone and called as many of my friends to tell them who were feeling so at risk having been brought to this country at an early age and found a could not participate. thank you. thank you. having said that, i want to ask you about the visa program. we have reforms needed to minimize the risk. you know, there is conflict and opinions even in the president's job panel's a bout this program. i am concerned about what is said in this report. for example -- i will read directly from this. oversight agency's and statutory changes weaken

protections for u.s. workers. elements of the program that could serve as worker protections such as requirements to take wages, of the says, temporary status, -- visas, -- it goes on to talk secondly about the program that lacks provisions for holding employees accountable to program requirements when they obtain h1b workers when it discusses the staffing companies. changes have in combination increased the pull of h1b workers at lower the cap for eligibility. you know, i know we try sometimes to have all things always in this country when we are trying to help people and companies etc. we have an employment problem

in america. we have serious education problems. we are told by those who try to protect the program and expand the program that we have occupations that are desperately needed to do some of the jobs that are needed. perhaps in silicon valley and other places. they have to look for importation of workers to do that. some of us maintain that many of these companies have the kind of campuses that should include more training, more development. we want our education system to put more people into the pipeline. with these kinds of concerns, what can you do to ensure that these kinds -- that the oversight that is needed is done? those of us here at this level of government making public

policy, we have to weigh in on whether or not we want to continue to support, expand, or what have you. what roles will you play? >> i am not personally familiar with that report. i will follow up. we will follow up with the of what we have done in response and pursuant to the rip -- recommendations to it. >> thank you. i look forward to it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you madam secretary for your testimony today. a number of curiosities have arisen listening to you. did you have discussions with president obama with regard to the policy within the june 15 memorandum prior to issuing the decision? >> i did not. >> would members of the white house a direct tax -- access to the president? once i informed the white house prior to the release of the

memorandum that was my intent to do so. the internal meetings that we worked on and how we developed the program started in early may. >> does that mean your staff had communications with white house staff in regard to this? >> yes, they raised no objection to my intent to prioritize cases in the fashion that we have. >> were you surprised a new issue the memorandum that the president had a press conference scheduled within hours? >> no. >> that was coordinated with the white house? >> it is a major announcement to how we are prioritizing education enforcement and is appropriate for the president to speak to it. >> he pointed out article to section 3 in the constitution. i thought i had memorized. i looked it up. you assert your responsibility under the constitution. >> one of them, yes. >> of congress is going to

direct -- congress writes the laws. the president has been clear on that. i think you will agree with the statement the president said. if congress is to read a lot that directs an executive branch to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, how would we read that bill if we wanted the laws enforced that you have decided will not be? >> i cannot speculate as to how you would read that but i would simply say based on my history as a prosecutor there are lots of laws on the books within the framework of which prosecutors make -- >> we understand prosecutorial discretion. when i looked through the reference to prosecutorial --

prosecutorial discretion. i see it mentioned four times in here. it looks almost as if this is written anticipating the constitutional objection that i assure you i will print -- there is a separation of powers. the executive branch cannot legislate by executive order or memorandum. we cannot allow the article ii legislative branch. only the congress acting to its authority can confer these rights. you have directed the director to issue a work permit for people who fit within four classes. this is not an individual directive. establishes for classes with and it to issue a work permit that does not exist. our vises and work permits are creations of congress, the executive branch.

will you send this before we have to take it to court? >> i will not resend it. is right under law. it fits within our priorities. although it came out of the department of common security, the president is four square behind and embraces the policy as the right thing to do. >> the president challenged it. we have to assert to this authority. the founding fathers envisioned each branch would carefully protect the authority invested within the constitution. when you cross those lines and there are a list of things that have been done by this president, this one is the most clear. i accepted the prosecutorial discretion when it dealt with individuals. i do now when it deals with groups of people created by a memorandum. i do not when it deals with a work permit order to be issued the does not exist in the united states code. that is a province of congress. we will see each other down the line in litigation.

>> thank you, mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, madam secretary. i would like to address the topics. i want to welcome the young hispanics who are here with us this morning. let me tell you. when you have seen sacrament -- celebratory napolitano handing the policy that the federal government is about to implement, that means your dreams are very much alive. now, secretary, as you probably expected, i want to raise the same issue with you this morning because the last time you appeared before the committee, mainly for the crisis in puerto rico. i want to express my gratitude to you and your team for

traveling to puerto rico last week in order to investigate the situation firsthand and to meet with the governor and myself. i think our meetings were positive and productive. i hope you will agree. on tuesday i wrote you a letter. in addition to think he -- thanking you for your business, i noticed your presence underscored the federal government's commitment to working with local law enforcement to expand our efforts to combat drug trafficking and related violence on the island. i said i was heartened to hear you be clear that public -- puerto rico's crisis has your full attention and our model moving forward. i also expressed agreement with your statement that the definition of success should be significant as sustained reduction in the number of homicides on the island. i think we all recognize the

urgency and light of the severity of the situation. in my letter i strongly endorsed your plan to develop a law enforcement strategy specifically tailored for porter rico and the neighboring islands. i believe the strategy will ensure our efforts are coordinated and will help to identify gaps in the current approach that can be filled. i respectfully ask this be coordinated with the department of justice. personnel are working side by side with your men and women on the frontlines of this fight. finally, i know that any meaningful struggle you will require reasonable allocation of personnel and resources whether temporary or enduring basis. in the five-year period between 2007 and 2011 the number of homicides nationwide fell 20%. in the same. the numbers of murders rose by

over 55% in puerto rico. the law enforcement footprint on the island has not evolved in the face of the profoundly changed circumstances. it is my fervent hope that the forthcoming law enforcement strategy will be action oriented and more recognize an enhanced response is required if we are to be successful in the shared endeavor. madam secretary, i just want to give you the opportunity to tell me and my fellow members of this committee in broad terms, how do you envision going forward on this issue? i thank you. >> thank you. yes, i went to puerto rico because i am troubled by a number of things in terms of the crime situation there. the homicide rate being twice that of mexico is a real eye opener. on my return, i have already met internally with my staff and we have appointed an internal person to help coordinate. we will reach out to doj and a

particular to the u.s. attorney in puerto rico. i think it will take all of us working together to get a handle on this and get that crime rate down. that is what our intent is. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and madam secretary for being here. when you were here back in october we discussed the week before he had been online using the security clearance you have given him when you placed him on the advisory -- the homeland's security advisory council. he used that to access the state and local intelligent data base and download the material. we have information that he shot at trying to claim texas was islamophobes.

since that time, you told me personally at that time that you were going to look into it. you were not going to appoint somebody. you yourself would look into it. what did you find out? >> i found out the statements that have been made in that regard are false, misleading and objectionable. >> you need to know that you have people who are applying in your department. the texas department of public safety has been told the investigation was done. he did access the classified information with his own private computer. he did download the documents that we knew he did. the one thing they could not confirm because they did not talk to a reporter or the

people that he shopped the story to, they could not confirm that he shopped the story. are you saying right here before this congress that as secretary of homeland security it is a lie that he down loaded material from a classified website using the secret security clearance to give me? are you saying that is a lie? >> i in saying that is inaccurate. that is correct. >> what is inaccurate about that? >> a number of things. we have several people on the home and security advisory committee who are muslim. they have been helping law enforcement for a long time. he was recognized by the fbi -- >> i did not say anything about that. confine your effort as to what i said and what you find misleading in it. >> one of the things i find misleading is that he's -- he somehow downloaded classified

documents. >> you are saying the state and local intelligence and data base is not classified? >> i am saying as part of my note he did not out of classified documents. >> one of the gains that it played about people who come up here and testify as they have somebody not provide them adequate information so that they can come in here and say "so far as i know, not to my knowledge." the obscure the truth. it did not bother you that he access to information? >> he accessed some information. what bothers me is the allegation made against anybody that happens to be muslim. >> the allegations are not because he is muslim. you follow me around the world. you see me hugging muslims a

round the world. the ones that i hug are our friends. this administration has a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups that are allowed into the white house. you are aware of that happening, are you not? >> absolutely not. >> the evidence speaks for itself. obviously you are kept in the dark about a lot of these things. are you aware of what the freedom and justice party is in egypt? >> representative of -- >> are you aware of what the freedom and justice party is in egypt? it is a simple question. it does not afford an interruption. is she aware of what the freedom and justice party is in egypt? >> with the secretary respond to the question. >> yes. >> are you aware that his foundation that is now had their

charter pulled because they failed to provide the information that the government requires to keep their status? are you aware that was before the status was pulled called the freedom and justice foundation? >> i will not get into a debate did not some of this -- >> i am asking you if you know simple facts. >> i would like -- >> use a you will not get into a debate. i do not want a debate. this is a question and answer. are you aware of that being the name of his foundation that now has the 501c3 status pulled. >> the insinuation -- >> will you answer the question -- >> can we have regular order? >> please answer just the question. >> with all respect, i believe you are insinuating that i and

members of my staff -- >> i am not insinuating anything. i am asking a direct question. >> let me say -- >> were you aware of the freedom and justice foundation -- >> let me say to the gentleman from texas, i do not think you're going to get a different answer. >> i would ask the assistance of the chairman to direct the witness to answer the question as asked. it is very simple, yes or no. >> you are free to give a final answer. >> i would like to say to this committee -- >> that does not sound like a yes or no. >> mr. chairman, regular order. >> the answer is not responsive. >> madam secretary, do you have anything to add? >> i did not know this was a court with rules of evidence.

i was hoping i could explain my answer. >> do you want to proceed to do just that? >> my question was a yes or no answer. >> regular order. >> the reasons there are rules of evidence are so witnesses do not go off on a -- >> mr. chairman, can we have regular order. >> the gentleman's time has expired. as the witness said anything to add? >> yes. this committee has a long and proud tradition. these kind of accusations demesne the committee. the fact that we would -- >> i have not insinuated -- >> mr. chair, regular order. >> and me say to the gentleman -- >> there is no insinuation. -- >> regular order. >> to come in here with an allegation.

>> can we have regular order? but said the committee will be in order. the gentleman's time has expired. i understand the frustrations of the gentleman from texas but i do not believe he will get a different answer. his time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. are you familiar with these cases, the louis decker case in new york, the case in california. you familiar with those names? >> i may know them by different descriptors. >> let me briefly go through these and i will talk about specifically criminals. as a former judge and prosecutor as you work, crime is something that none of us like. there are some criminals that are still halt -- they are still here and do not go home when they are supposed to. louis decker was a grandmother in new york when she was ordered a murder by bangladesh.

he was illegally here in the united states. the system worked while in prison he was ordered back to bangladesh. he never went back to bangladesh. it would not take and here he gets out of prison and he murders louis decker. steals her car and some other things. ashton klein mcmurray, a 16- year-old child coming come from a football game was murdered and beaten by an individual from cambodia. the same situation. he never went back when he was supposed to. ben luck was sent to prison for armed robbery. it's out of prison and was ordered to go back to vietnam but they never took him back. he gets out and murdered five

people in san francisco. we have this recurring issue of criminals committing crimes from foreign countries. the law requires the go back home. they do not take them back. we actually have a lot and says they are supposed to be some diplomatic and the says that are supposed to be rejected for people who do not go back. my investigation of the law, i can only find one time since the law was written that one country was sanctioned for failure to take back lawfully convicted criminals from their country by the isle of be says and that was gone up. -- ghana. it took back 112 after recension them. the way i understand, your department is to let the state department know these countries are stonewalling the system -- i think gaming the system.

they just want to leave them here and make them our problem. i only see one case and that was several years ago. the concern i have is, why is that not happening more often that the country is sanctioned by diplomatic vises for failure to take back lawfully convicted felons. when i read the law it is a requirement that they shall take back -- the the says will be denied to these countries, diplomatic visas or other vises. i do not see that happening even though the loss as a shock. the state department is supposed to reject the visas. can you help us out with that? >> he really identify two problems. there is a supreme court precedent that says we cannot hold people indefinitely.

there is a time limit on that. the other is the practical problem that there are a few countries in the world who refuse to accept them. the state department is well aware of this. i think the moves they are making is something you should address to them. there are well aware of the problem. >> what i hear from the state department is, they are passing the buck. they did not get the information from you from the countries that are not compliant. that is the answer i get from them. that is what i am asking you the question. are you furnishing them the state department, the affirmation of these countries that refuse to take their citizens back? the issue is not what i am concerned about. that is the law and i understand that. it cannot keep them in jail. that is not the issue. the issue is that they get out. and there are problems.

the state department is media for mission and they do not get it from you. are you getting that information to state about noncompliance? >> there must be because they are taking action and issuing these countries the diplomatic tools they are using a something--- is something you should address to them. >> do you know of any other country that has been sanctioned and we refuse to give them the says about the noncompliance? >> i do not know of any. >> i have more questions but i will submit them to the record because i know you will not let me keep talking. >> the gentleman from utah is recognized. >> thank you, madam secretary. i appreciate you being here. 40 appearances is an impressive number. i want to talk very quickly. i sponsored a bill, hr3012. fairness for high skilled immigrants at the got rid of the cap limitations.

we passed it out of this committee and is in the house. -- it is in the senate. is it something the administration would be ok with? but some would have to look into that. that sounds right. let me verify that. >> i want to give to the southwest border. i am concerned, the president, yourself, the attorney general have all said the selfless border is more secure than it has ever been before. an operation fast and furious, the government purposely allow 2000 weapons to get into the hands of the drug cartels. how many of those weapons were detained at the border?

>> i cannot answer that. >> my understanding is there has not been one single gun from operation fast and furious apprehended by, and security or any other law enforcement other than the two weapons that were found at the scene at the death of brian carry. is there any -- am i wrong in that? what can i answer that. i do not know. >> let me ask you this. one of the things that has been touted is when you look at the different sectors a run the country and the protection we are trying to provide this country, the tucson sector is by far the most problematic. my question for you is, if the number of detentions is going up, does that mean that the border is more secure? if the numbers -- if the number of detentions is going down, does that mean the border is more secure? which one is it? >> it is down. >> does that mean it is more secure?

what more apprehensions show it is more secure. >> the way it works is that -- this is something difficult to measure. the apprehension numbers are used as a proxy for how many are attending. we actually think we are now picking up almost everybody trying to cross the border illegally. we can look at that because we are looking at crime members in phoenix, stash house in phoenix. other conditions for their turn to get into the country. >> in phoenix the crime rate between 2008 and two dozen that was 6%. to claim it is more secure, i look at nogales.

that is the biggest city on the border in the most problematic sector. if you look at it as a nine in 2010, the total number of offenses recorded is up 92%. >> if i might, i know the arizona situation very well and pay a lot of attention to it. the phoenix violent crime rate, kidnapping, stash houses, and other things associated with the illegal immigration, way down. it does not correspond to any other number i have seen or what the sheriff tells us. >> this is from the department the police. let me read some members. 2009 to 2010, burglaries' up hundred 13%, and grand theft auto up 70%, assault up 81%, damage to property up 81%. it does not sound like this is the most secure border we have ever had. >> i will tell you this. there are probably a number of reasons for that.

i would challenge the accuracy of those numbers for a number of reasons. said me a question and i will be happy to answer it for you. >> that would be great. we have operational control of the border yet? >> i think the southwest border is as secure as it has been in decades. >> what percentage of the border is secure? >> i would say that we have the ability to move men, air cover to the entire southwest border. >> but we have not recovered a single gun from fast and furious even though we purposely give the drug cartel 2000 weapons? this is the concern. i would disagree that it is more secure than ever. we have places like nogales. >> the government accounting

office last year said 40% of the border was under operational control. do you disagree? >> yes. it gets into governmentees. >> their objective -- their objective and not under the thumb of the administration. the other thing, you said you thought virtually everybody crossing the border illegally was being picked up. >> in some areas, yes. >> i do not think you made that clear a while ago. the border agents i talked to still think that two or three or four individuals are getting across the border illegally for everyone apprehended. >> the head of the border patrol will be happy to provide you with a briefing. this is the first time we have been able, we have enough manpower and material or we can

get ahead of changing traffic and we're searching. >> what areas do you think you're picking up everybody coming across the border illegally? >> i think -- i would have to give you a list. one of the arizona sectors, we're getting virtually everybody. it is more than one and three which was the debacle statistic. re-ou're picking up for south texas, i doubt that is true. >> we're putting a lot of evidence -- working to -- work into texas. >> that is not an accurate summation of what i said. i said in one of the sectors and think we're getting virtually all -- we're getting virtually all. the tucson sector is active but

when i compare the numbers in tucson sector now to what they were a few years ago, there is almost no comparison. it is night and day. >> the afternoon. you mentioned the term prosecutorial discretion 8 times in a 2 1/2 page memo. i want to ask about that. it was important enough to use multiple times. prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. we have the discretion whether to indict, went to indict and when to call the case for trial, to charge barden but i am interested in whether or not there are any limits to prosecutorial discretion because i can tell you and to prosecute a lot of cases where i disagree with the underlying law.

i never understood the disparity, i never agreed. it never entered my mind to subordinate the legislative intent with my own and i would say to people who think they benefit from these episodic exceptions to the administration of law, and equally, to be careful. it may benefit you. tomorrow it may not. with respect, their defense is not this illustration or your department. with respect, their defense is not this administration or the department. their defense is that we are a nation of laws and not a nation of men or women. let me ask you this. if he decided that he thought marijuana should not decriminalized, does he have the ability, the power, does he no longer prosecute marijuana cases? >> perhaps the law is still in the books. >> i asked if the administrator had the authority to have a memo to say we will not

prosecute marijuana cases because we do not agree. >> well, i think the administrator has to write a discretion to say what cases will be prioritized and which ones will not be and how those lower priority cases will be handled. >> i am not talking about a case by case. the truth is, you already have the authority to decide on a case by case. in other words, there is no need for this memo. it to give you no other authority that you had before you drafted it. it leaves some of us to think that it was a political memo and not a legal one. can you understand the skepticism of some of us? you already have the authority

to decide on a case by case basis. why publicize it? by announcing to the world unless it was for political purposes? >> it is the outgrowth of several years. it was a 2010 priority on our memos. there was a 2011 memo on discretion. the move began going case by case through the 350,000 cases in the backlog. we found that in doing so, that was not enough to really clear out and get out of the huge backlog we had in a lower priority cases. this memo takes the lowest of the low priority cases. >> i am familiar with the policy. my response to that is, if you are right on the policy, then you ought to be able to convince the people who passed the laws that it is a legislative issue not an

executive issue. that is an example of congress saying to the judge, you have the discretion when it comes to sentencing. it will be 60 months for a garden variety regardless of whether you think that ought to be. my guess is when you were the u.s. attorney in arizona, if a judge deported below the guidelines, it would appeal because it was out of their discretion. my question is, what is our remedy as lawmakers when you ignore laws that have been passed? what is our remedy? to cut off the funding? to direct to you? the explanation i have heard is one of resources, that we do not have the resources to prosecute this category.

tomorrow it may be another category case. and the day after, another category case. at first blush, it strikes me that it takes many resources to identify whether your memo applies are not as it would to prosecute the case.

>> john. kennedy said the absence of war is not peace. another thing we must come to realize is the world is truly, and i want to see if you guys understand your floss i, if you have nod read -- go back and read it, the universal cosmopolitan state. see, what we have to recognize is those three very simple words that ronald reagan put forth, rain true forever and forever and that is peace through strength. the reason why i think you see all of the volatility, all the craziness that is going on

across the globe right now is that the united states of america is not portrayed in strength. yesterday i sat down and talk with some representatives from the free syria movement and they talked about the united states coming to their aid. they talked about the united states getting involved and providing them support. and i asked them a question. with what? we're sitting here with the se quest ration hearings. we're going to send 200,000 men and women in uniform home. we're going to take our ground forces down. the army and marine corps to a level it's never seen since 1940. we're going to take our united states air force to a level that it has not been at since we created the modern day united states air force. and yet people are saying we need the united states military. we don't have a credible military threat right now. we just don't. we have men and women who have

been on five and six combat tours of duty. we turn over to our special operators who are supposed to have a narrowly defined mission set and all of a sudden we believe they're the soup du jour when it comes to anything that's happening out there. send this, send that. that's not the point. see, what we have failed to do in the united states of america is look at the world broken down with the geographical a.o.r.'s, the ucoms and the next 10 to 15 years, what are the emergent threat and build a capability based upon that. it cannot be budget based. it has to be based on the threat that's out there. when you look across this globe right now.

when you look at the belligerence that you see coming out of russia. when you look at china with the trade imbalance that they have. the fact that they hold some 28% of our debt. their growing economy is not going towards improving the standard of living of a chinese citizen. they're looking at increasing their military capability. the world's largest blue water navy within the next eight to nine years would be flying under chinese flag. what are we doing with our navy? in the 1990's, we had some 500 or 600 naval war resentfuls. sequestration takes it down to 230. 70% of the mass of the earth is water. you take the fact that every great civil accusation, everyone has understood by the means by which you really and truthfully

expend the power and the dominance of a nation is through a navy. what are you doing to our maritime forces? that's the message that you're sending out to the world right now. when you look at north korea, they believe china has their back because china has so much of our debt. when you look at what is happening in venezuela, and you have to disagree the president when he says they're not really a threat. tell me why their missile site's being in place in venezuela. and why is there such a conclusion -- collusion between venezuela and teheran? look at what is going on in somalia. look at what is going on across northern africa. look at a new radical islamic group in nigeria. look at the situation in europe. there were those of us that said who fills the leadership vacuum

in egypt a year ago? and everyone says you're an alarmist, cut it out. you're scaring people. we try to get them understand what the muslim brotherhood was. they ran a presidential candidate and that person won. and now our most staunch allies in the middle east israel has to be concerned because all of a sudden for the first time in 35 to 40 years, you've got terrorist attacks -- in the cyanide desert. now they have to bring out reserves. not to mention what is happening in the failure of the united nations mandate 1701 which is supposed to preclude hezbollah. it is capable of striking every single city in israel. we know what a mass is doing in the -- hamas is doing in the gaza strip.

it's not about us trying to be an empire. it is about us understanding that we are a beacon of liberty, freedom, and democracy. we are a beacon that other people depend upon. when you talk to eastern europeans and the concerns they have about a resurgence of russia and the fact that we turn our backs on them as far as dismissal defense shield, that's what they have problems with. so is military superiority a very important thing for the united states? is it a key to peace? it absolutely is. because you have to have a credible military. it's part of the national power that you have, the dying theory. you have informational power. you have economic power which if you look at our debt and

deficits, the economic power is failing but you must have military power. and what we as constitutional conservatives need to be honing in on -- i was listening to the "washington journal" today and it's unfortunate that here is a credible news source and they're talking about mitt romney's tax returns. they're not talking about the economic security of this country. they're not talking about energy security. they're not talking about national security. we are on the cusp of having a hollow military. and they're talking about mitt romney's tax returns. this is such a threatening position. let me put it in a historical context. i told you at the beginning. the united states of america first win in the world war ii, pearl harbor casually passed. when united states went into korea, task force smith was absolutely decimated, wiped out. we have a bad habit of not being

able and being prepared for the next major combat operation. and here we are putting ourselves in a position, putting our men and women our truly greatest resource that this country can offer, our sons and daughters in a horrible situation in 2003, when i deployed my battalion to iraq, we did not have enough body armor. we have some humvees who didn't have doors on them. that's not how a nation, united states of america, projects power and projects strength. we have to have a strong military and we cannot look at the military and say this little 19.6% of our budget is going to be the bill payer while this other 62%, the net interest on our debt, we won't touch it because we have politicians up here that don't have the courage to stand up and tell the american people what needs to be

said. the number one responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. when you read the constitution article, the majority and the responsibilities and the task in congress does not have to do with giving out food stamps. it has to do with protecting the american people. but unfortunately if you go back and look at food stamps spending from 2002 to where we are today, we've gone from $20.6 billion to $75.8 billion a year on food stamp expenditures. and the farm bill that came out of the senate want to take food stamps per year to $80 million. but -- billion. but we're going to turn over to our men and women in uniform and saying you're not worth the investment to keeping us safe and secure. that's reprehensible and that's why we have to have men and women who have been on the tactical end to come up and make the right type of decisions here

in washington, d.c. the world is more machiavellian. with that being said, what are your questions? [applause] >> i want to ask you some questions and i'm going to use the platform here to ask the first one. i was so glad to hear you use the word military superiority. it's not just being strong, it's being superior. and those words used to be in the republican national platform, but they're not now. will you help me put those words by telling your delegates to what to do? >> absolutely right. and there's a little known fact that a lot of people aren't paying attention to. if we're not careful, this could be the first election cycle in the united states of america where we have sitting president and vice-president and can date for president and vice-president that have never served in the military. i believe this is the first time in i think 77 years.

how will you be able to articulate as we said, the preempt -- preeminent response of military superiority? and that's not just about bullets and ammunition and guns. it's about full spectrum of military operations, intelligence tom demeanor nance, things of that nature. we've got to have people that have served in the military. and once upon a time, i'm sure you well know this, you had members of the congress that served in the military. now we're less than 12%. that has a reflection on the priorities of this country. >> question? >> [unintelligible] >> well, i think once again, you have to go back and look at what are the rights and proper constitutional roles of responsibilities of the federal

government. i disagree with the president when he said the people are out there, you know, creating businesses and running businesses and having successful. that's not due to their own success. that's due to government's success. when you start to get to that poirnts then what you're really saying is we own you. we have got to unleash the individual and entrepreneurial spirit. from the individual, you get innovation. now, the federal government should be really focused on the things that the individual cannot provide for themselves and private sector organizations cannot provide. and when you start to look at it in that perspective, then you really understand what are the lanes of responsibility to federal government. go to article one, section eight. look at the task and responsibilities for congress and that gives you a clear insight into what we're supposed to be doing. federal government has gotten too big. way too big. it has become a bureaucratic

state. and we're starting to get away from the things that are necessary for the function of this government. how many people here have read the book, "democracy in america"? >> -- it talks about when congress gets to the point where it can bribe the public by using the public's treasury, guess what you get? this is what you have. and that's why you have this growth of the federal government. we're promising more and more largest to the american people. how did that work out for greece? or portugal? or italy? or ireland? or spain? you know, i know we're on c-span right now so, this is a question you should always pose to liberals. where has what you believe in ever been successful in the world? [laughter] [applause] >> we like the questions to be on the mic.

who's got a mic and a question? >> thank you for being here. >> it's an honor. >> could you give us some insight to what previous months and i believe it was last year, president obama had met with major jewish leaders behind closed doors of the white house. could you give us some insight as far as what you think is obama's -- whether obama's suppt for israel is one of the biggest myths? thank you very much. >> well, i don't speculate or i don't get into this objective. i ask you this. as president of the firefighters union, how many times has he -- president of the united states of america, how many times has he been to israel? i think you see that what the ramifications thereof.

that's what i look at, your actions. and those actions have not lent us to believe that israel is really and truthfully our greatest ally. there's some issues about how the fact that israel was looking to have launching bases. how did that information all of a sudden get leaked out? the fact that they need the intelligent sharing, the bunker bust ammunitions, aerial refueling, air space clearing, those are the types of things that has to happen and right now, once again, we're not showing that strong support of israel. so therefore, the other actors in that neighborhood are starting to rise up against us. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> my question is to syria. some are saying that our lack of involvement at all is showing that we don't really have power or influence in the middle east. so my question to you is what do you see are our future in syria

and what is it that we could possibly do? >> if you recall the president when it came to making his announcement about his troop withdrawal in iraq, his opening line was i've kept my campaign promise. national security cannot be based upon campaign promise. the commander of iraq at the time asked for 15,000 residual force. he was then told to be 3,000 to 5,000. and next thing, it was zero. now we've left a vacuum in iraq. the al-maliki is pretty much a puppet now of iran. this promoted what is exactly happened in syria because iran is extending their dominance. you've got to be very careful about what's happening in syria. because on one side, you have

iran and you have russia. there's no doubt about it. they're supplying weapons. on the other side, you do have freedom fighters. do we know who they are? do we know their structure? as the gentleman asked yesterday. what is the strongest political group in syria? that's the key question. the next thing is you have al qaeda and you also have turkey that is seeking to become the next islamic -- the return of the ottoman' empire. so who's side do you come in on? that's the question you have to ask yourself. and understand once again, they respect strength and might. if you don't have a credible military threat, a credible mill military presence, you're not going to be able to get their attention. my biggest concern is that we get involved in syria and it starts to resemble 1983 and lebanon where we didn't have a clear-cut goals and objectives

and we didn't have the men and women the right type of rules of engagement and the next thing you know while they sleep in their barracks, truck bomb goes right through because they were not allowed to have a magazine and the -- in the well of their m-16 and the terrorists saw that. what is going to be -- what is a new free syria going to look like? i do not want to see the massacres that are going on. i do not want to see him stay in position but when you make that assertion, which the president did last year, then you have to immediately follow it up with a credible presence or a credible next step. and we haven't been able to do that. >> glad to have you here. >> thank you. >> i have a question about as we work towards maintaining u.s.

military superiority, how do we assure that superiority is used to deal with keeping the security of the united states intact and not being used as a global police force for conflicts and things that have nothing to do with u.s. interest but just politics? >> that's where you have to have individuals with a understanding of the three levels of warfare. they know what it means to imploy your military. but we have to protect the sea lands of commerce. when you look at what is happening there in the straits, that lends us to having energy independence so we don't have to be concerned so much about the straights and we pull those naval forces back truly and we can take away that threat. when you look at what is going on with china as well, expending

themselves and the biggest threat is to taiwan and taiwan is looking for us to be able to provide some type of assistance and then i think that's very important in the pacific rim as well as with vietnam and the philippines. so that's why again, you have to sit down and look at this by gee graphic -- geographically. and start to look at what are the emerging threats that you would have to contend for the next 10 to 15 years and build your capability and capacity to be able to contend against those threats. i talk about the 21st century battlefield. it is totally different unlike any other battlefield we faced. because this battlefield is sentenced on non-uniform belligerence that have no respect for international borders, boundaries or what have you. you have to have a totally different type of mindset. i think when you look at our military, we need to move away from a forward deployed military. we're in germany or we're in

korea, kind of a cold war holdover. we need to go toward a power projection toward of military and that lends you to understand the maritime platforms that you can use and also the quick strike type of forces that you can use. more of your light capability forces, army, air force, navy, marine corps. and so we really is a reworking -- it really is a reworking our strategic level posture of our military so we can be flexibility and along the entire spectrum. although i don't believe that anyone is willing to take on a military spear on the battlefield. 125 now, be very careful. you can say that, you know, thigh jerry ya may not have an effect on the united states of america, but it speaks to your

values when you have the christian community being pretty much murdered. so i am not one that thinks that we need send the united states military all over to try to well every single uprising or conflict, but i think that once again, as ronald reagan said, you can't have peace through strength. >> eagle forum has worked very hard to defeat the laws of the sea treaty. would you like to comment on that treaty? >> well, the interesting thing. i'm on the house of representatives' side so we do not have the interaction on the treaty. that's on the senate's side, but we cannot feed our sea lanes and our water ways through this

international organization. and that's one thing that i'm very much so concerns me. we've got this thing about the gun laws coming up as well. so i don't want to see us lose our relationship as far as being able to be a sovereign nation and being able to dictate what we do as far as, you know, operating on the open seas and of course those waters that are, you know, close into our shorelines. so i am hoping that the laws is defeated in the senate. this is something they've been working on towards for quite some time because i think it leads to a subserve dwronalt the united states of america. >> you don't think the brewer cat's should make those decisions for us in jamaica? [laughter] >> i've got to be careful about this because i'm married to a jamaican. >> oh. >> and her cubs happens to be a minister of their parliament. they might not let me go down and vacation.

no. we cannot allow other country, hey, honey, i'm not messing with jamaica. 0 >> i have a question. these young people sitting in front of you. the media has portrayed college campuses and the use of this nation is totally behind the left and obama. what do you tell these people? these young men and women who are excited and proud to be who they are and represent what they are, they can do to actually change that. make the media understand there is a large conservative youth base that can put barack obama out of office? >> well, i will tell you that the whole mantra of hope and change is divide and con quemplet young people back in

2008 who are sitting at home in their mommy's and daddy's basement and that don't have a job, they feel like the american dream is slipping away. and what you all represent this next generation of constitutional conservatives that understand that this is republic -- this is a rebel. -- republic. so it's hard on college campuses right now. some people will say you guys are behind. if that be the case, continue to stand. continue to stand on principle and with courage and conviction. because what you believe in is the fundamental basis of this nation. when you to go back and you read the declaration. when you to go back and read the united states constitution, that's who we are. that makes us unique and exceptional. that means for a young man like myself, can grow up and have a 22-year military career, command an army of the battalion combat

and stand here before you with -- that's what we cannot lose in this country. but that's the threat. part of our d.n.a., part of our genome as americans is that we pass on to the next generation the blessing of liberty, freedom, and democracy. and that is what i'm afraid about. and ronald reagan talked about it. freedom, you know, is only one generation away from being lost. it's something that we pass through in the bloodlines of this great nation. and that's why i look out upon you all and i have two daughters, 19 and 15. you all are our future. and the media does not want to admit that you exist. and you look at the number one guys in the liberal and the media seem to love to hate. george soros just put a $5 million price tag on my head. hi, george. happy. [laughter] use your social media. ok? get your message out on youtube, on facebook, on twitter. connect with others. so that people know that there

is another voice out there. and we have to have the continuum throughout all of our age group, all of the demographics to show that this thing that you all believe in, this thing, the eagle forum promotes limit government, fiscal responsibility, individual sovereignty, free market, strong national defense. that's what makes america great. >> question? wait for the mic. >> for those of us who are going to -- into the military, any advice? or areas that we should be aware of? >> pay attention to your training. and always take care of your teammates. that's it. i mean, that really boils down to are you going in through rotc?

which branch? >> marine corps. >> why not army, man? [laughter] you went in because you knew the chicks dig the uniforms, don't you? [laughter] and you guys have great commercials. army commercials, we've got to get a little better. no. i commend you for that because in any family, i'm the third third or fourth generation of military -- thank you for carrying on for wanting to make a difference. the first thing you need to look for is your platoon sergeant and listen to him. he will make you a great second lieutenant which means you will be a great captain and listen to your first lieutenant who will make sure you will become a great jar. and always take care of your marines.

>> i have a similar background. you grew up in the junior city. my message is get out to the community in the inner city and bring back the military values. how can i do that effectively and fight the liberal who is might say that it's cruel and unusual punishment? >> well, i think that for forever reason, our dear friends, fellow americans who are liberals, they would rather see more people at the government than more successful on their own. high school rotc set me on the path that i'm on today. when i it and remember them, those are my four high school rotc instructors. they saw something in me and they developed a sense of

leadership in me and why would anyone disagree with that? why would anyone disagree with men and women who have served in combat? men and women who served in uniform to go back into our inner cities and try to teach honor, integrity and character and selfless service to our young people? and that goes to talk about the core of the soul of a liberal progressive mentality. and i think that's what we have to understand. there are two different governing philosophies at war in the united states of america. one is that of a constitutional republic. one is a socialist welfare nanny state. the latter cannot be the way forward for this country. so when i look at the inner cities, when you look at 14.4% unemployment in the black community, when you look at the fact that you have over 40% unemployment for black teenagers, you know, my wife and i, my wife is a brilliant woman. she has an m.b. sandavement a

ph.d. we've been married for 23 years can. black family, kids that have mother and father at home, 28%. something is going very wrong in this country. and that's the truth. it has to get out. >> and we're depending on you to keep it up. let's thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> we're very proud of his service. he's made a great name for himself. all right. our next favorite speaker has arrived. congresswoman michelle bachmann and before she had her politics, she was very busy as the mother of five children and she has 23 foster children in her home. i don't know -- i have six children but i don't know if i could have dealt with 23 foster children. in her spare time, she was a tax litigation attorney. she has become one of the real

conservatives, leaders of the conservative movement, particularly demand thought we must repeal obama care. she was first elected to the minnesota state senate where she was a big supporter of all of our views about taxpayer bill of rights and education and then she was elected to congress in 2006. she's one of the recognized leaders of the conservative movement. she wows the country when she won the iowa primary and we're just thrilled to have congresswoman michelle bachmann here today. [applause] >> thank you. well, good morning. any day is a good day when i can even be in the same room with phyllis. so i am thrilled to be here. she quite literally got me through all of the years when i was a young mother at home. and let me just start off by saying if there is any advice that i have for all of you, it would be this.

marry well. find someone that you love. [laughter] marriage is forever. it's for life. you're going to look at that person a lot of mornings across the breakfast table so think long and hard before you actually make that decision. but i'm encouraging you, get married and have children and live life. >> in that order. >> in that order, that's right. [laughter] and phyllis has probably been one of the best examples of that, of a woman who really did it all, who lived life very well, who was a mother and a wife, but also who worked her way through college. i don't know if you know her background. she worked and she tested guns, wasn't it? bullets? she tested ammunition. now, if anybody could do that, that would be phyllis. this is not a stretch. you can imagine phyllis doing this. all to say my point is life is a long process. and we live it in segments.

and one thing that i see too many people doing is saying i want to be president. well, there's nothing wrong with saying i want to be president. but get to that point of living your life, doing something. the best example was this last week when our president went out and made the statement that if you built your own business, it isn't you that is responsible for your own success, it was -- and he was inferring it was government that was the reason behind your success. well, what this showed was a window into our president's soul. it's why he truly doesn't get it about what america is about. i say that because i came from a family where my mom was a single mother. we lived below poverty. we just had nothing. i had to work my way through college and through law school and through my post-doctorate program. when my husband and i got married, we didn't even own a car. we worked our way through

college and graduate school together we've got our capital together. we just live on the cheap nonstop. all of our clothes came from garage sales and we did what americans do, who have nothing. you work and you save and you put aside. what you put aside is called capital. and that money you can take and try and invest and do something with, we took that money and we started our own company. we own two clinics. so we started our company and we became successful. i became a tax lawyer. i spent a lot of time in the courtroom litigating tax cases all to say it was our sleepless nights. it was our paying ourselves last, our employees first. it was our not taking sick time, not having vacation time. we built this. we thank god for it and we thank god for the customers and everything we have but we know how the frequent -- free market system works. you don't get that sense at all from the president that he has any clue how the american system

works. that's why his policies have been so profoundly dangerous, particularly for you. and for your age. let me just give you one statistic. this was from the house budget committee, and in the house budget committee, they say by the year 2027. that seems like forever, doesn't it? do you know how many years from now it is? 15 years. calculate in your mind household will you be in -- how old you will be in 15 years. you're gorgeous. don't take for granted that you're thin. it doesn't last forever. except in phillies's case. in 15 years, you're 35 years old. that's not that old. but now consider what they said. by 2027, our economy will effectively shut down. that's not crazy michelle bachmann. that's not right ring phyllis. that's your government saying to you that in 15 years, our

economy smothers and shuts down. why? debt accumulation. really? yeah, really. i came into congress in january of 2007. you know what our debt was then? a little over $8 trillion. do you know what our debt is now? almost $16 trillion. it took 219 years to accumulate a little over $8 trillion in debt. it took us less than six years to practically double that debt. that's how fast this debt spiral is going. so this isn't just hyped up overheated conservative rhetoric. the reality is that it is our lives that change in the future if we don't get a grip on the spending and one of the key drivers in all of this is the president's health care plan. that's why this captured the attention of the nation. senate budget committee also determine tat thin funded net liability of the president's health care plan will be $17

trillion over the next 75 years. just by way of comparison, that $17 trillion for obama care, social security is $7 trillion. that's been the big driver that everyone has been scared to death that we won't have enough money for social security. well, let me tell you. we don't have enough money for social security $7 trillion, we won't have enough money for funding obama care, which is $17 trillion. that's why this is so important to you. because it is your life and your beginnings and your future. and so i'm glad that you're here so that we can discuss the issues and the philosophy, but when you leave here, i'll telling you, we don't have a lot of time. we have three and a half months to make this election count because over and over during the presidential election, i said all of our chips are on november. and that is more true now than ever. i sat in the supreme court chamber when john roberts read

his decision from the bench and i was incredulous. i put my hand over my heart when he went through the beginning of his reasoning and he knocked down the commerce clause and i thought oh, this is great. the individual mandates that just because you breathe in america, you're forced to buy a product or service that government tells you must buy which means the government has the monopoly on that service or product which means they dictate the price of that service. that's what he ruled and he did that on the basis on the taxing authority which was the flimsiest portion of that argument that we could. but the point is now, more than ever, we've got three and a half months to take our country back. and so if we could spend three and a half months sitting in seminars and philosophy things, we don't have time. now we need to find a candidate we believe in.

whatever needs to be done to win these elections, we have to. we have to win the triple crown. we have to win the white house. i think we can with mitt romney. we have to win three more united states senate seats because if we do, the republican vice-president can cast a tie vote in the senate to repeal obama care and then hold on to the house of representatives. i did make a distinct contribution to this presidential race. i made the repeal of obama care, my signature issue. when mitt romney began his campaign, he was not for the repeal of obama care. i made that the issue and pushed that and the american people are with us. 70% of the american people want the president's health care plan either fully repealed or reformed. now mitt romney has said eyeball to eyeball to me multiple times, michelle, i will repeal obama

care. we need to recognize that no matter who our nominee is and i stand fully behind mitt romney, that we have got to get behind him, even if he's maybe not everything you wanted, he's our guy. and i think we can trust him. in fact, i know we can trust him on this issue. we have to work for him. we have to work for at least three for senate candidates and house candidates and right down the line because it's your future now, literally, in this election -- and this election will be decided. but the good news is an economy can be turned around. the best example is jimmy carter and the disaster that he made in the late 1970's. i worked for the jimmy carter campaign. i have to admit that. i was in college. i was a democrat when i was in college can. i worked on his campaign. he said he was a born-again christian. he was pro-life and i worked for him. so i had my own renaissance when

i was in college and i worked for reagan and i never looked back. and i'm pleased that i did and ronald reagan in a very short period of time showed them miracle and the power of the free market system. it can happen again in your life too, the economy came roaring in. if we don't win the white house, if we don't win the senate, we don't win the house wet, turn the economy around. we can't repeal obama care. so now more than ever, we need have you in this upcoming election so if you have some questions, i would be more than happy to take them so thank you for allowing me to be here today. [applause] >> thank you for being here, congresswoman. we keep talking about repealing obama care and replacing it. replacing it with what?

>> very simple, no cost to the taxpayers. today, we have a monopoly. in all 50 state it is a throat insurance companies enjoy in those states. i want to break those down and let american buy any health policy they want with no minimum federal requirements. then pay with their own tax-free money and have true medical malpractice reform. that costs nothing. and that will drive the cost of health care down for everyone. that is just the beginning. but quite honestly, the answer is getting the federal government out of health care. it's the federal government intervention that has spiked up the cost of health care. government always does that. when government intervenes, the price goes up. if government intervention can get out, we will bring the price down. quite honestly for people your age, a health insurance policy shouldn't cost more than $30 per

month. if you spend more on houston downloads, you can afford health insurance. you don't need your parents to carry you. so all this is is redistribution of wealth true health care. and you're paying that freight. so there's a lot more we could say about that, but that's the short version. >> it would cost much less and the government runs it, don't you think? >> we're already seeing the answer. no, phyllis. >> you said that you practiced law. what advice would you give to people that are studying for the l-sat and about to go to law school? >> study hard. that's a good thing. my best advice to every one of

you, i assume you are all leaders because you're here in this room. and there's a phrase that we teach our own children. it's leaders are readers. as i just gave one of our daughters, who will be going to a similar college this fall, a whole list of books i want her to read before she goes read a wide range of books. it's good to go from a wide variety of sources. be very well read. during the course of the presidential election, i loved the debates more than anything. that's my favorite part of the entire process. and one thing i will tell you is the best preparation was a lifetime of learning, a lifetime of reading, and a lifetime of living. and i go back to what i opened up with today. live your life. do something with your life. get married. have children. start a business. engage in life. don't be a participant. don't ever forget this is not a dress rehearsal, what you're living. this is it. this is the main event.

this is life. start living it right now. that doesn't mean just heedism or engaging in license. get engaged now. because you literally can start setting the stage for what the future will be yourself if you get engaged now in this election. so i think it's wonderful you're taking the test. but study hard and in law school, take a wide range of classes. and it also may be the foundation for a different career. it may not be a law career. it may be a foundation for something else. but it's a great background. >> thank you so much for being here. i'm from arizona and first, i have to admit you're my congress crush. i admire you so much. and i'm so grateful. >> congress crush if i've never had this before. this is so cool! my kids don't believe it. they'll say oh, please. [laughter] >> my question is when and why did you decide to run for the

congress? >> let's see. when and why did i decide to run for congress? i was in the minnesota state senate at the time. and our local member of congress decided to run for the united states of senate and i had people approach me saying you should really do this. i had no intention of running for the minnesota state senate. i just shoipped for our republican endorsing convention. we had a rhino running. he wasn't a running and right on the spot, people said you've got to do this. and i said i look like a mess that day. i showed up. i had a torn sweatshirt. my hair was a mess. i had jeans on. i said i would look like a freak if i ran for senate but this guy was so you have a the charts. and he said somebody's got challenge him. and i thought ok. i'll put my name in. so i did. i got endorsed that day. and my husband was not around. this was before cell phones. he came home, it was april fool's day. [laughter] and he found out his wife was

endorsed for senate in minnesota. and, you know, what are you going to do? so i had to run. i was endorsed. you can't undo those things. so i wound up being in the minnesota senate. my husband said he thought it was a great idea. but we really parade long and hard. -- prayed long and hard. . and on about the afternoon of day two, we believed in our souls that this was the right thing to do. so we did it. because it is a cost and a sacrifice. you leave your family and you come here to fight this fight but i know that i was prepared for this fight. and i have the will and the backbone for this fight. and i've been grateful for the privilege. i represent wonderful people in all -- and all i am doing is bringing their voice and their sensibility to the hall offense congress and i'm grateful because i know it made an important contribution not only here but also in the presidential trail.

when i put my voting card, i see your faces. because i have 20 children invested in the future and that's what i'm working for. and so that's it. pure and simple. >> congresswoman, i go to southern methodist university in dallas, texas and i would argue i'm your biggest support pert >> oh, please, no fighting. [laughter] >> but i have a question. do you enjoy or do you ever get tired of being the liberals' number one target? >> well, the last 48 hours, i've been their number one target again. and it's worth the fight. the latest fight that's going on, i sit on the intelligence committee. we're a very tight-knit committee. there are 19 of us and we deal with the nation's classified secrets and something that has been clear under the obama administration is there has been influence from the muslim brotherhood at the highest level of power. and so we're raising questions. and we're asking questions of the inspector general to take a

look into it. and let me give you one example. two weeks ago the state department violated federal law. the state department granted a visa to a member of the foreign terrorist organization from egypt. we list this as a foreign terrorist organization on our website. so the state department broke our is own law and brought a foreign terrorist into the united states. not only did they bring this terrorist into the united states, they took him to the white house and not only did he go to the white house, he had a meeting with the national security council. you don't get any higher than the national security council than dealing with the nation's classified secrets. what did this member of the terrorist organization request when he was in the white house two weeks in the federal law? he request had the united states opened our united states prison and release to the world the

mastermind of the 1993 world trade center bombing a blind cheek and we members of congress are just asking a question. why did the state department do this? and why is this the latest in one series of another outrageous unbelievable actions on the part of the administration to allow influence by the muslim brotherhood at the highest levels of power? the state department, the pentagon, the f.b.i., why is this going on? we just want to know. and for that, msnbc, cnn, all the usual suspects have been saying after we're going after individual personality asks we're being mean to muslims. this has nothing to do with being mean to muslims. there are a lot of people who are upset about radical terrorism too. we believe that the administration needs to keep the can safety and security of the american people number one.

and so why i'm in trouble now. every day i'm in trouble for something. who cares? who cares? [laughter] >> congresswoman, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. >> i'm going to make a couple of comments and i will ask a question. i grew up in a private school up until the third grade and then i went to public school and i feel like the education of our generation is deteriorating under the public school system. and i listened to the david bartman a couple of weeks ago and he goes around and he talks about the christian fundamental values that was in place in our founding fathers and how they taught that. first congress made a bible, a congressional bible. >> what's your question? >> i'm sorry.

anyway, i wanted to ask as far as reforming the public schools and moving more towards privatization of schools, do we have anything going at this point? >> well, thank you for asking that question. and phyllis has been one of the leaders in the united states on the education reform movement. she's been on this issue since the 1950's when she saw the problems that were coming into america's public schools. and we have a real common bond and a love for this issue. that's why i got involved in politics. we had homeschooled and sent our biological children to private christian school. but our foster children, we were prevented by the state of minnesota from homeschooling or sending our foster children to private christian schools. there was only one option, the public school. i was very concerned about what i saw in our public schools. so as a mother, i became involved. the federal government has essentially taken over the public school classroom. and what i said during the course of the presidential race is that where i president, i would shut down the federal

department of education. they have done nothing to add to the quality, to the high standards of america. they have only brought them down. the local public school classrooms must be directed by local parents and local teachers and local faculty. that is where the emphasis needs to come. and there's any number of excellent materials that we can use to teach children academically but i believe strongly in the high quality of local public schools. and as former bill clinton who said america needs to get over its love affair with local control of public schools. we're seeing the end result of the federal government and what happens when they run our public schools. we need to get like so many other areas. we need to get the federal government out of rointh. they just mess up everything. >> young people like to hear and

see how their actions are being represented in politics. you said that romney wants to repeal obama care. how exactly is he going to do that? >> well, i think he's going to line the legislation. because it will be up to the house and the senate to pass the legislation for full scale repeal. and then we just set it on his desk and he either signs it or he doesn't. and so he will. i have no doubt that he will. he has told me as i said. eyeball to i'll that he will do it and i think he's a man of his word. this is a very sharp guy. he's very savvy. he's an optimistic person. he has proven himself that he knows how to succeed and he gets business. he also gets that the public is very upset with obama care and he will be endeared to the nation when he affixes his signature to that legislation. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for having that question. -- for asking that question. >> i want to personally thank

you for taking all the foster children in. i'm a conservative activist, how do i bring the conservative message back to child welfare advocacy without being attacked by the liberals? >> just count on it, you will be attacked by the liberals. it goes with the territory and that's where you have to have a titanium spine. and honestly, when i was a courtroom lawyer, the one thing that i found in my life is in order to succeed, be the best prepared person in the room. especially to the young lady's question on the l-sat, that is what you do, be the best prepared person in the room. one thing i learned, i need to know my opponent's case better than my opponent did. i need to know their case inside and out. i need to know my case inside and out so i can poke holes in their arguments. that served me very well during the course of the presidential debate.

so i encourage you, be extremely well prepared. if you're going to work with adoption or foster care, this is an issue where we're talking about human life. these aren't just like widgets that we're dealing with. these are human life. so we want the best possible outcome and the one thing that we know is that a child does best in a home with a mom and a dad that the -- with a stable environment where even they don't have to have a lot of money. just a stable environment. and so that's what a child needs. so i would put some legislation forward for foster children so they could at least stay in the same school. if they're changing homes, if they could at least stay in the same school. do you have a follow-up? >> yes. -- [unintelligible] >> ok. i think this is our last question. >> good morning. thank you for being here.

i'm lindsay from atlanta. when you were telling amy about being well prepared and the books to read. what would you suggest the list of books? >> everything phyllis has ever written. go to used bookstores and buy it. she is an absolute genius and i say that not flattering, she is. you are looking at -- you don't realize how privileged you are to be in this room with phyllis. this woman single-handedly, and i mean that, single-handedly, moved the nation in the 1970's. no one else, no man in this country did what phyllis did. and accolades would take hours to talk about this woman and what she has done for this country. she quite literally is a living legend and i don't remember what your question is. oh, i know. books. yeah. everything phyllis wrote. but you can go to my website. i have a list of books and

classics. but find some good authors. marc stein has some good contemporary books. "america alone" is a good one. ann coulter has some great books. you want to be well read in history. you want to know american history. dave and barton. learn america's history and heritage. because when you know who you are, you fall in love with america. you fall in love with our concepts. there is no other nation like america. make sure you read our founding documents. the declaration of independence. the constitution of the united states. the bill of rights. you can get that done in an hour. be sure you read the documents. read the federalist papers. begin there. it's very easy to do. but be well read and call my office and i'll give you more books to read. . >> if you want a good lesson in how to deal with the press or with hostile questions or professors and so forth, you professors and so forth, you watch michelle bachmann on the